Re: SMuFL

[Urs Liska]

Johan Vromans <address@hidden> schrieb:

>Carl Peterson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I think we're getting hung up on the fact that SMuFL is being
>promulgated
>> by a corporate entity and the only implementation of SMuFL is
>produced by
>> that corporate entity (and that most of the musical font work is
>being done
>> by other corporate entities releasing them under proprietary
>licenses).
>
>Am I the only one to interpret SMuFL as *Steinberg* Music Font Layout?
>
>What is missing from the SMuFL information is an impressive list of
>music software that backs up SMuFL. 

That's the question.
Of course at this point of time we can't expect any list to be existent.

I think we can wait until competing
>non-Steinberg music software is picking up support for SMuFL.
Of course, but what if everybody thinks so?

>
>Waiting for broad support does not mean that it won't be good to start
>thinking how LilyPond font handling can benefit from a SMuFL(-like)
>approach.

That's what we're doing right now. And despite all the controversy I think 
that's a good thing.

Urs
>
>-- Johan
>
>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.